CCW and Posted No Firearms Rules

[WVsig]

My extension - if the right to your life trumps the power right to life of the attacker, certainly my right to life through self-defense trumps the right to control one's property if my exercise of my right doesn't threaten you on some technical grounds.

That is a strong argument but one that you would have a hard time establishing in court IMHO. I personally disagree with it. I think you analogy does not apply. The two examples you have offered up are fundamentally different and as a result are treated differently by the law. IMHO I believe that property rights are right there step for step with my right to life. I know that many others do not share this belief but that is where I am coming from.

First I will agree that in some cases the use of deadly force to preserve your right to life trumps the right to life of an attacker. I arrive at this conclusion because IMHO the attacker has forfeited their right to life by creating an imminent threat to your right to life. In these types of justifiable killings there is a immediate threat to your life and you are passive in the threat. It is being done to you and you do not have a choice to opt out. This is often the burden of proof required to justify deadly force. Shooting someone shooting at you is justified. Shooting an attacker who is fleeing with your wallet 15 yards away is not. Both have put your right to life in jeopardy but the law treats them differently.

Your argument attempts to extend this to someone "posting" their property. In my analysis this analogy falls short. No one is forcing you to enter someone else's property. No one is forcing you to give up your right to life. At all times you have a choice. They are allowing you to choose by establishing the rules and conditions required for entry. The choice is still yours. Enter my property on my terms or do not enter my property. So in this scenario you are not the same as person being attacked. They are an unwilling victim when you enter someone else's property you are a participant.

There is also no imminent direct threat to your right to life. Unless you are entering a building with an active shooter or you have knowledge of an imminent attack, which would change the scernio back to one of self defense. When you ignore that sign there is no imminent threat to your right to life and you have a choice not to enter the other persons property. There is a subjective perceived threat everywhere which is why one carries a gun but that does not equal a actually imminent threat which is the foundation of your self defense example. Since you are not entering property under an imminent threat to your right to life your justification for violating the rights of the property owner does not carry the same weight as in a defensive shooting.

This is the point your attempt to equate these two scenarios has failed. The two scenarios of competing rights are not the same. IMHO they are not even remotely the same. One involves an immediate threat where the threatened party is a non-participating victim and the other is a matter of choice which does not involve an immediate threat to your right to life.

You may still choose to ignore those signs. You might still believe you are in the right but so far you have not given a logical argument which adequately supports that choice IMHO.

 

[Hardcase]

Remember, also, that those classes of people that have been used as analogies (disabled, religious, etc.) are particularly special because they are protected classes. Although the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the constitution, that right does not create a protected class.

As an example, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute. If I stand up in the middle of a theater and start yapping about the topic of the day, the management is well within its rights to demand that I leave the property.

I happen to think that businesses that ban firearms, particularly concealed firearms, are making a poor decision because the person who has gone through the rigmarole to get the permit has demonstrated a level of commitment and responsibility that makes him a "safe" person. The guy who carries a concealed weapon without a permit isn't going to let that sign bother him. But just as I reserve the right to eject an individual from my property who isn't follow the "house rules", I respect those of others as a condition of enjoying their hospitality - regardless of whether I'm a visitor or a customer (although I have to say that, as a customer, I might very well take my business elsewhere).

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

TFL is not a business, so when you pay us for posting - then ...

However, businesses and services are necessary to live your life. The idea of businesses discriminating was to restrict the fundamentals of life to classes of people. No services for people of color, no jobs for Jews and the like.

Restricting your use of services could be quite detrimental to your life and welfare. Yes, you could go to another store but such laws and employment practiced denied you a life in entire geographical areas of the country and denied you the right to support yourself and family. Such practices were explicitly denied to do such.

You have plenty of options to express positions without posting on TFL and not posting here isn't detrimental to your life. The free speech options exist across the country.

Thus, the restriction of topics here do not meet the same standard of restriction as the restriction on potential usage of reasonable methods of self-defense.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Hm...

You're welcome to use TFL but we will restrict your speech and that's ok because there are other places for you to speak.

Ok, I agree. No problem. But, how is that different from:

You are welcome to buy my pizza but I will restrict your right to be armed and it's ok because you have other sources of food.

Same, same.

 

[WVsig]

However, businesses and services are necessary to live your life. The idea of businesses discriminating was to restrict the fundamentals of life to classes of people. No services for people of color, no jobs for Jews and the like.

Restricting your use of services could be quite detrimental to your life and welfare. Yes, you could go to another store but such laws and employment practiced denied you a life in entire geographical areas of the country and denied you the right to support yourself and family. Such practices were explicitly denied to do such.

You have plenty of options to express positions without posting on TFL and not posting here isn't detrimental to your life. The free speech options exist across the country.

Thus, the restriction of topics here do not meet the same standard of restriction as the restriction on potential usage of reasonable methods of self-defense.

Sorry but the choice is the same. You want people to respect your right to control your private property in the way you deem fit but you do not afford others the same. Life is full of choices. TFL is a service business just because you do not charge a membership fee or charge people to post does not change its fundamental nature. Also as has been demonstrated to you those who carry a gun do not = a "class". You can continue to call them one but it is not supported by your arguments or the law.

You cannot logically prove your point so now you are resorting to strawman arguments which really are nothing red herrings. Again you have drawn a comparison between two things which are not equal yet you feel as if you can draw the same conclusions from them. Your arguments are not logically sound.

I could do the same using your flawed logic I could argue that I need info about guns and their role in self defense and that it is essential for me to live my life. I should not have to curtail my political, religious or moral views to get access to this vital information. Yes I could go somewhere else but this is where I want to get it. Its the only one I know. How can you justify oppressing me? Its kind of absurd isn't it.

You clearly feel your right to self defense trumps all other rights. You feel you have the right to do as you choose. Why not simply state that instead of trying to produce flawed illogical arguments which simply do not hold up.

 

[Tom Servo]

The idea of businesses discriminating was to restrict the fundamentals of life to classes of people. No services for people of color, no jobs for Jews and the like.

True, but is being told I have to leave my gun in the car to buy a slice of Peet's pizza the same as being told I can't because of the color of my skin? In the first case, he's deciding what I can do on his property. In the second, he's denying service because of what I am.

That's where I have some trouble seeing the equivalence.

(I only use Peet as a facetious example. I don't think he'd actually ban guns or Lutherans)

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Its also odd that carrying firearms would be uniquely protected apart from, free speech for example. I can tell people they can't use nasty words on my property. I can tell them they can't wear certain clothes. I can tell them they can't do explicit physical contact. They can't play certain music. They can't be there at certain times. They can't record audio or video. The can't drink beer. I can restrict religious speech. I can tell the press to leave.

Religion can be censored on my property.
Speech can be censored on my property.
The press can be censored on my property.

I can't forbid firearms?

It's nonsensical.